zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Oocca
Oocca and Ocarina has anyone noticed the similarity of the word "Oocca" with "Ocarina"? Not to mention Ooccoo's head, from the side, looks a lot like an ocarina. Considering the Oocca had a connection to the Royal Family, they could have created the original Ocarina of Time and given it to the Royal Family, right? Twisol talk Unlikely since the ocarina of time has the power to actually manipulate time which no other Oocca artifact has the ablilty to do. Also if it was created by the Oocca why would they make only one? That would make its owner more powerful than any being on the planet because they could simply alter time and space to suit their needs (similar to Link in both Ocarina of time and Majora's mask). This would be a very unwise decision unlike other common Oocca elements which were all aimed at self preservation. 991807 00CCA It should be noted... Because Shad is a historian and becuase he studys the hylian mythos his reasearch requires sourses which are either ancient religeous texts or papers writen by other historians or preist like figures about the interpretaions of thees texts. "some say they created the hylians" shad. this statement implys that there are either dissenting or non inclusive opinoins among his sources meaning that the topic is therory even by the standards of hyrue.i beive the more intruiging topic here is the occoca's relationship with the wind tribe. (Foutlet (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)) A good point since they share sky settlements and secretive natures but a very difficult topic to follow up on since so very little is known about both groups. Overall I believe the Oocca to be the more interesting of the two. --991807 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) MC Escher drawing connection The part mentioning the drawing is indeed relevant and I do think inspiration was drawn from it, but the point must be made that it is a drawing of only one bird, from three angles. So there are no birds actually walking on walls in the drawing - it's one of Escher's perspective tricks. Posting this since I'm not sure how to address this in the text. 05:02, June 5, 2010 (UTC) Skyloft Maby? I havent played Twilight Princess though by the way the floating city is described, it may be possible the city that from Skyward Sword. Connection to Hylians in Skyloft Now that Skyward Sword has been released, and many new parts to the story have been added, isn't it all the more possible that Skyloft is The City in the Sky in which the Oocca live? Looking at the 'theories' section of the Oocca article, it is said that the Oocca could be descendants of an ancient race of humans living there, or pets of those humans, which could mean that they are evolutions of the Loftwings. :Going by what this article says, there does seem to be enough evidence to draw a connection between Skyloft and the City in the Sky. However, I see nothing that could hint at the Ooccas being evolved Loftwings. That just seems too contrived for its own good. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:13, December 19, 2011 (UTC) I'm gonna have to agree with what EDJ said, but i have the same theory, considering the fact that many aspects of skyloft are seen in the C.i.t.S. Also, it appears to be floating up there magically, 'cause those props. ain't doing a thing for it to float. Also, unless there was an abundant crater ( like the sealed grounds ) , the City could not be up there. so skyloft likely broke, or was broken, into the City. Aside from that, it's likely that Hylia told the skylians to descend back to earth, while simultaneously creating the advanced buildings up there, so her news-giving race could live somewhere. This could mean that the fans serve a much different purpose than what was first thought. if this is true this could explain the extensive damage, though argorok could have done that if he wanted, and he quite obviously flies wherever he wants. so breaking his perch wouldn't give him any anger.Zeldas ganon (talk) 01:24, February 25, 2012 (UTC) :Shad states that the Oocca created the City in the Sky, while Hylia is stated to have created Skyloft for the Hylians. There is no direct connection between the two. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 02:38, February 25, 2012 (UTC) Ok, since this keeps coming up, I'm going to try and break this down as thoroughly as I can. First off, lets list the similarities between Skyloft and the City in the Sky (CitS from here on out). Skyloft is built on chunks of land which are magically floating in the sky due to the Goddess's power. The CitS is floating in the sky; I see NO evidence that it is built on floating pieces of land; all of the floating objects appear to be artificially carved stone or metal, and what actual soil and plants are there simply seem to be held within these structures. See this video at about 4:10 for an excellent zoomed out view of the city. I know of no other similarities between the CitS and Skyloft/other SS islands. As far as I know we're never given a hint as to how the CitS is floating, aside from the propellers seen on the bottom (obviously more than just normal prop physics would be needed here, but it does imply a technological means of floating to some degree). Note that the Wind Tribe was successful in suspending massive structures in the sky through their own means, which makes it perfectly plausible that the Oocca could have managed the same feet simply through their own magical and/or technological advancement. Next, let's hit the Oocca themselves. Shad provides us with some possible lore on their early history, which is questionable due to conflicts with the rest of the series, but let's see what happens if we assume all the rumors are true: "-But also according to legend, long ago there was a race even closer to the gods, and some say THESE creatures made the Hylians. When they created the people of Hylia, they simultaneously created a new capital, a city that floated in the heavens. They dwelt there...-" If we take this as fact, the Oocca preceded the Hylians, and created the CitS and the Hylians themselves at the same time. So if you believe Shad's tale, this Oocca-descending-from-Skyloft theory dies instantly. If we don't take that as fact, we're left with an artificial city which floats in the sky through unconfirmed means, and a "naturally floating" piece of land, which are inhabited by two extremely different species. I don't see a distinct connection here at all. Sure the sky isn't the most common environment to live in, but there are three separate peoples in the series who've managed to do so. Two races/settlements being in the sky does not make them relatives/the same location. Hopefully when this theory inevitable comes up again, this and Xykeb's point above can simply be copied or linked to and we'll quit having to repeat ourselves.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 02:51, February 25, 2012 (UTC) Loftwings? Considering both species are intelligent bird-like organisms, is it possible that the Oocca could be descended from Loftwings? Yes, I'll admit it is a bit of a stretch, but it would be a smoother transition than Hylians to Oocca, and it would also tie in to the idea that Skyloft became the City in the Sky. Setras (talk) 19:38, March 5, 2013 (UTC) :That doesn't match up with the lore behind the Oocca unless you're saying that the Loftwings created the Hylians and then let them ride them for some reason. Also Skyloft did not become the City in the Sky. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 20:04, March 5, 2013 (UTC) Well, the "lore" behind the Oocca comes mostly from Shad's account, one which would have been heavily distorted by the passage of time. And indeed, the events of SS call Shad's entire account into question, as there are no hints as to the existence or nature of the Oocca in the game or its backstory, but the backstory of the Hylians is told without mentioning them. Plus, to the best of my knowledge, no canon source confirms that Skyloft and the City of the Sky aren't one and the same- Hyrule Historia itself only says that the relationship between them is unknown. Setras (talk) 21:18, March 5, 2013 (UTC) :Instead of dissecting what's wrong with this bit by bit, let me put it this way -- if you use the words "I'll admit it is a bit of a stretch" in reasoning for your own theory, that means that the theory does not have nearly enough basis in fact and shouldn't be put on the page. Additionally, as a community we still haven't made a definitive decision on whether or not to actually include Hyrule Historia information. ~Minish (talk) 21:25, March 5, 2013 (UTC) I only said that due to the size discrepancy and the fact that Loftwings lack speech capabilities, two factors that might cause people to disassociate the two races. But the Loftwings do display a great deal of intelligence, and it wouldn't take much for them to develop a little further and so gain speech and critical thinking. It would also make more sense and be more sound on biological and evolutionary grounds for larger birds to become smaller bird-like organisms, than it would for a humanoid race to denature into said organisms (as the Hylian-to-Oocca theory on the page suggests). Setras (talk) 21:45, March 5, 2013 (UTC) :Shad is the only canon source that we have on this information, and therefore the most reliable. In fact, he ends up being indisputably right about quite a few things. Unless you can give me a good reason to believe that he is out and out wrong about several things, we have to take his word as the most canon source of information available. (In regards to what you said about SS, it does not explain where the Hylians came from in the first place, which to my knowledge is the only concrete connection between them and the Oocca and therefore the only bit of the story that could actually contradict Shad's story.) A theory that requires an in-game researcher (with a pretty good track record of correctness, mind you) to be completely and utterly wrong in order to function on any level whatsoever is not an acceptable theory. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 01:46, March 6, 2013 (UTC) But Shad's account is still couched in hypothetical statements- he states that "some say" that the Oocca created the Hylians. There's nothing concrete linking the two races, and to say that Shad is correct about this factor just because he was largely correct about the technology of the Oocca is to use a logical disconnect. Indeed, the Oocca themselves display no capability to create or influence other life forms, so there's actually no tangible proof that they have such power. Shad is indeed quite knowledgeable, but like all Hylians, he had never seen the City in the Sky or the Oocca and so was relying on educated guesswork. Claiming that he was correct about those myths is similar to stating that Gorko was correct about Skyloft because he was familiar with some aspects of it. Setras (talk) 03:27, March 6, 2013 (UTC) :It doesn't matter. He is the most likely source to be correct because he is the only source we have. With no real reason to think he is wrong besides the entirely conjectural possibility that he could be wrong, we take him at his word unless contradictions appear, of which there currently are none. Your theory is based on the assumption that Shad must be wrong, which we do not have the right to assume because the game gives us no reason to. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 03:46, March 6, 2013 (UTC) Actually, he isn't the only source- as I said before, the Oocca themselves are shown, and they display none of the capabilities Shad attributes to them. The game offers no reason to assume to Shad is wrong, but it also offers nothing to suggest he is right, and again, assuming he is correct on the matter is not somehow a more viable position than assuming he is incorrect. Being correct about the Oocca's city and technology does not automatically mean he is an infallible source or his knowledge is beyond doubt. Yes, there is no reason to assume he was incorrect, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I never said he was definitely incorrect. But other than his words, nothing in the game or the rest of Zelda chronology suggests that the Oocca can, would, or did create the Hylians. Your reasoning here is tenuous at best. (And yes, I know how ironic that is coming from me, but it is still true- you are basically making an appeal to authority based on the assumption that the authority is unquestionable.) Setras (talk) 04:04, March 6, 2013 (UTC) :Here's the difference: I'' don't have to give you evidence that Shad is right, because ''I don't have anything to prove to you in the first place. Contrary to your beliefs, I am absolutely not arguing that Shad is indisputably correct about everything — I'm arguing that there is no specific reason to believe that he's wrong, which is what you have to prove to make your theory work on any level. All you've managed to prove is that there is technically a possibility that the theory could work, given a lot of assumptions that nobody has the right to make without a lot of evidence that we don't have. That is absolutely not enough to base a theory off of. Unless you can give me a reason right now why it is likely that Shad is wrong (not possible, not plausible, but likely — that means with real evidence to the contrary, not wishy-washy "here's why it's possible that he's wrong" nonsense), your theory holds absolutely no water. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 04:26, March 6, 2013 (UTC) It seems we have reached an impasse. I won't add the theory, but still, your position is not convincing to me. There is no specific reason to believe Shad is wrong, but no specific evidence is offered to elucidate his claim either. I have not and largely cannot prove my point, I admit, but all you have offered in the way of proof is an imperfect appeal to authority, which does not inherently prove the claim or otherwise make it any more likely. We will have to agree to disagree, as it's obvious this is going nowhere. I apologize if I angered or offended you- I never intended to do either. Setras (talk) 04:59, March 6, 2013 (UTC) :If that's how you interpreted my argument then you're at least right about this debate going nowhere. Thanks for at least bringing this to a talk page first and subsequently choosing to not add the theory when people disagreed with you, though. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 05:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC) If you need, like, a third opinion or something, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Try not to bury what you're trying to say in a bunch of conjecture next time. --Auron'Kaizer ' 11:00, March 6, 2013 (UTC) I was initially suggesting that the Oocca were descended from the Loftwings of SS, rather than the Hylians. Setras (talk) 13:01, March 6, 2013 (UTC)